Art,
You have some interesting points there.
“What does “glorified” mean?”
We know exactly what it means from the Apostle John, who saw the glorified Christ.
“Is it a univocal term meaning only “radiant with overwhelming VISIBLE glory”?”
Above.
“Was the “glorification” of Jesus a single moment—before which he was absolutely without glory, and after which his glory necessarily was overwhelmingly radiant? Of course not.”
No. He set His glory aside, veiled to take on human flesh. After his ascension, God exalted and glorified Him.
“You ignore the Transfiguration, which occurred BEFORE the “glorification” of Jesus.”
No, I do not. I thought about the Transfiguration before I posted. It is worth noting that He was transfigured.
Matthew records this, “And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light.”
and this was just a peek behind the veil. He is not now transfigured, but exalted and glorified.
“You ignore the fact that Mary Magdalene mistook the risen Jesus for the gardener.”
This seems to support the distinction between risen from the dead and ascended and glorified.
“Obviously, the presence of Jesus may or may not be accompanied by VISIBLE glory, as God chooses.”
No, after the ascension and glorification, this does not appear to be the case.
“The absence of visible glory is no argument against the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.”
Oh, sure it is. Some day, you will hopefully be able to compare for yourself. I certainly wish it for you.
I don’t detect any sort of coherent argument in all this. God can do anything he wills. He certainly is free to manifest his glory to us in a visible manner, or not, as he chooses. He is certainly not required to fit himself into your Procrustean bed.